55
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:32 am
@msolga,
This is insanely frustrating msolga. How you are missing this point is either my failure to communicate or your deliberate evasion.

If I ask you how to cook a burger safely, and you reply that no burger has been undercooked before, then you haven't answered my question.

Quote:
Why would I be explaining how Wikileaks could possibly mishandle information because you think I should?

By all means don't, but if you don't have any standard of evaluation, then how can you say that no organization is infallible?

What do you have to lose by sharing on this? You've made this absurdly difficult to talk about. Why so stubborn? What has got into you?

A
R
T
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:39 am
@msolga,
Also, what's with the hard line here? Why so black and white on WL? Do you really see no middle ground on this?

You've labelled me against transparency. That's dictating terms: That I must to for WL if I believe in gov transparency. I don't think WL should be taken down. I'm saying it's not the solution.

Are you interested in solutions? If so, then lets talk.

A
R
T
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:42 am
@failures art,
Quote:
This is insanely frustrating msolga.

You've noticed? Wink
Quote:
How you are missing this point is either my failure to communicate or your deliberate evasion.

OK, let me put it this way:
You are arguing the anti-Wikileaks side of the argument.
I am arguing in support of Wikileaks.
It is not my job to argue a position you want to explore.
It is unreasonable of you to expect me to.
It is like asking a pacifist to argue the case for war to oblige a war monger.

I'm sorry, Art. I've had enough of this.
If you want to explore that line of thought, well you do it.
I am not stopping you.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:45 am
@failures art,
It's you being obtuse fa when you use words like "recklessly". That's your value judgement which Olga doesn't share. You need to justify your values. And asserting that lives are put at risk doesn't do that. It doesn't address whether those lives deserve to be put at risk or not. It doesn't address which lives or whether more lives are put at risk by restrictions on freedom of information.

The only way WL could mishandle information from Olga's point of view is to falsify it or redact it in such a way that the result is falsification.

Whether Olga is right to demand to know what is going on is another matter.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:49 am
@failures art,
Art, it is 1:43 in the morning here.
I will be going to bed very soon.
If you wish to open a dialogue about solutions, then by all means do it.
Start the ball rolling.
Talk about some of the solutions that you think might work, if you like.
Then anyone who wishes to become involved in that dialogue can, of course, do so.
You & I are not the only two participants here who can have such a discussion, if they want to.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  5  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:25 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

I wonder how long before a google search for wikileaks doesn't show wikileaks. Even now it's only the third in the ranked list (the wikipedia entry is first) but that's probably just because of the wikileaks.org dns entry is now directing to a mirror - very weird.

300 hundred new "mirrors" have sprung up since this charade started - nobody can shut down all of them and anyone who enters into battles he knows cannot be won is a fool. Not to mention that calling Assange a "terrorist" - same legal treatment as Osama to be expected under US jurisdiction - makes the charade of our government only too obvious.

Furthermore - we provide free entertainment to all those we have lectured on "transparency", "free speech" and so on, starting with the criticism of China following the Peace Prize Nobel awarded to a dissident. The actual order to all federal employees not to read public links unless they have the relevant clearances is the stuff of comedy. Finally - this prosecution for "rape" in Sweden has frameup written all over it. It's hard to see how this could have been handled in a manner more calculated to hurt the interest of the U.S. It's beyond comedy or charade - crosses into debacle, and should stop.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 10:29 am
Thomas Seifert, editor of a daily newspaper in Utah (St. George Spectrum) explains why he criticizes Wikileaks, even though he has always editorialized for more transparency in government:

Quote:
WikiLeaks - OK, so I'll admit it may look like a
wishy-washy stance for an editor to seek more
transparency from our Legislature and local
municipalities and then to criticize the actions of an
organization like WikiLeaks that is, basically,
serving in a watchdog role. I'll attempt to explain
why I think my stance makes sense.

If a city council, state legislature or even the federal
government is doing something illegal or unethical
- meeting without proper notice, not following
procedures for highway bids or trading money for
votes - the media has a responsibility to do what it
can to find the truth and report it.

If WikiLeaks was using its many hacked documents
to reveal legal issues, then I would support it 100
percent. But what Assange's group is doing is not
an altruistic enterprise. It has embarked on a purely
an anti-American government crusade meant to
embarrass our country. How else can you explain
the so-called "poison pill" of documents that
Assange said would be released if he is harmed? Is
it really to protect him? If WikiLeaks is really
supposed to be about public service, why not
release those documents now?

And if WikiLeaks is a responsible watchdog
organization, how do its supporters explain the
release of State Department cables that provide
details about pipelines, vaccine suppliers and other
critical pieces of infrastructure? Such a move could
put people in danger. That's not public service.
That's irresponsible.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 10:49 am
@wandeljw,
Oh come on wandel, a small town paper with a circulation of 20,000 is speaking out and telling the world. Get real, wandel!

Yes, the "anti-american" drumstick is coming out the minute there is criticism towards the United States. For the record: WL released cables written by government employees, there was no editorial included by Assange stating that he disapproves of U.S. policies or any other anti-american slogans. WL mearly published that was provided to them.

CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 10:57 am
@spendius,
I actually agree with spendius here. FA, you're badgering MsOlga for pages and pages now over a difference in opinion. Yours is different than hers, get
over it or stay with the program. You've stated countless times what you think of WL, tell us something new for crying out loud, I get utterly bored scrolling through your posts.

The Guardian writes what other nations think about WL and the leaked information. Almost all of them take it with dignity and noblesse oblige,
the only "elephant in a porcelain factory" in all this is the United States itself.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:00 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Quote:
When asked how WL could mishandle information, you reply that you believe they haven't.

Yup.
And if that's a line of argument you want to explore, it is a case for you to put, not me.
Why would I be explaining how Wikileaks could possibly mishandle information because you think I should? Confused


what line would have to be crossed for you to consider that possibility?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:06 am
@CalamityJane,
Quote:
The Spectrum: Utah Paper Rejects Same-Sex Wedding Announcement


wande just picks out what bit he wants Cal. Without reference to consistency.

Tell me Cal--under what law is Mr Assange under US jurisdiction? The US has done the leaking and broken the confidentiality of diplomatic privacy. Not Mr Assange. What crime has Mr Assange committed in US law?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:11 am
@spendius,
Quote:
How many lives are at risk with a "weak, corrupt and nuclear" Pakistan?


Pakistan has not stated that the nuclear option is on the table.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:16 am
@failures art,
Quote:
Just because many governments are reacting poorly to this, does not mean that Assange is righteous. All players can behave poorly.


That they can, Art. And you go on defending one of the worst. One that has been one of the worst for a couple of centuries.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:17 am
@failures art,
Quote:
So...

1) WikiLeaks is not infallible.
2) When asked how WL could mishandle information, you reply that you believe they haven't.


Art,

1) Has the USA committed war crimes/mass murder/acts of terrorism/crimes against humanity?

BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:30 am
@JTT,
Quote:
1) Has the USA committed war crimes/mass murder/acts of terrorism/crimes against humanity?


Would you care to name me a court other then the one you seem to be holding in your bedroom that had rule that the US had committed any such crimes?

Second, it is beyond question that we had stopped many mass murders totally in the 10s of millions and save Western civilization many times over the last hundred years.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:47 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Oh come on wandel, a small town paper with a circulation of 20,000 is speaking out and telling the world. Get real, wandel!

Yes, the "anti-american" drumstick is coming out the minute there is criticism towards the United States. For the record: WL released cables written by government employees, there was no editorial included by Assange stating that he disapproves of U.S. policies or any other anti-american slogans. WL mearly published that was provided to them.




The circulation of the newspaper is irrelevant. I was illustrating that criticizing Wikileaks does not mean you are against transparency in government.

Wikileaks has been criticized as irresponsible for good reason. Diplomatic cables revealing the names of foreign citizens working on humanitarian projects shoul not be posted. Certain countries assassinate or imprison citizens that are working on humanitarian projects.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:47 am
"In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win." Rupert Murdoch (sic!), 1958
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:48 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
The Spectrum: Utah Paper Rejects Same-Sex Wedding Announcement


wande just picks out what bit he wants Cal. Without reference to consistency.

Tell me Cal--under what law is Mr Assange under US jurisdiction? The US has done the leaking and broken the confidentiality of diplomatic privacy. Not Mr Assange. What crime has Mr Assange committed in US law?


Frankly, I am surprised that Assange hasn't been blamed for the US economy yet.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:51 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Frankly, I am surprised that Assange hasn't been blamed for the US economy yet.



Well, someone might read your response and get the idea ... "was nicht passt, wird passend gemacht" as we say in German.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:52 am
@wandeljw,
Wandel - since you're the only legal eagle posting on this page so far I'd like to ask your opinion on this part of the editorial:
Quote:
How else can you explain
the so-called "poison pill" of documents that
Assange said would be released if he is harmed? Is
it really to protect him? If WikiLeaks is really
supposed to be about public service, why not
release those documents now?

That's an idiotic question on the face of it - WikiLeaks is under no obligation to observe anybody else's timetable. As I understand international law he cannot be extradited from England because he's a Commonwealth citizen; for the same reason he is provided with no consular services.

But if he's sent to Sweden, he can be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, which can result in a death sentence. Most European countries will not extradite anybody unless they get an assurance from the US that the death penalty will not apply to the accused. Sweden will ask the same.

Even if he were only faced with life imprisonment, not execution, it makes perfect sense to be keeping a little information reserve somewhere. I find this persecution (per-, not only pro-) completely baseless and idiotic as I don't see what law the man has broken in the US. We're acting like hysterical buffoons and it is we, not wikileaks, who are generating all that "anti-Americanism" worldwide.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 03:11:03